Can anyone provide a quantitative alternative explanation for global warming?

Question

Any answer along the lines of "the Earth has warmed before" and "Mars is warming" gets a thumbs-down. I'm talking about a scientific argument to explain the current warming trend of 0.4°C over 30 years.

If you think it's a natural cycle, then explain why that's true when according to Milankovitch Cycles we should be in the middle of a cooling period

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycle#The_future

If you think it's due to the Sun, then explain why total solar irradiance has decreased slightly over the past 30 years while global warming has accelerated

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/pmod-vs-acrim/

If it's due to increased solar magnetic field decreasing galactic cosmic rays (GCR), thus decreasing cloud formation and warming the Earth, explain why there is no long-term trend in GCR flux

http://www.realclimate.org/images/TheChillingStars.jpg

If you can't explain the warming scientifically, then how can you believe it's not being caused by humans?

First 8 answers are automatic thumbs-down, as explained in the question.

9th answer (Miss Kitty) at least made an attempt, although it came from Inhofe's page.

1) I haven't studied this theory very thoroughly, but there seems to be little evidence or agreement that the oceanic syncronizations could account for much of the global climate change.

2) Straw man argument. The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory does not require CO2 to be the driver of climate change. We know this was not the case historically.

3) This is the galactic cosmic ray theory I discussed in my question. It has been disproven.

4) Water vapor is dependent on atmospheric temperatures. It cannot drive climate change.

The best attempt at an answer so far though, actually discussing scientific papers. Kudos for that.

Overt Operative - the problem with your theory is that there is zero evidence to support it. That's why I specified "quantitative" explanation. The anthropogenic global warming theory has a plethora of evidence.

rightwing - automatic thumbs-down. Claiming there's a ton of evidence does not make it true.

JimSock - you fail to explain why the planet is warming so rapidly. The current warming is 20 times more rapid than when the planet has emerged from an ice age.

jeeper - your information is simply very, very wrong. My jaw literally dropped when I read it.

Answer 1

If you are really interested here is a few points brought up by senator Inhofe:
Senator Inhofe's Speech to the Senate 10/26/2007
2007: Global Warming Alarmism Reaches A "Tipping Point"


Along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, [this] new study belies Al Gore's claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism. Indeed, if [this study's] results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC's scientific ‘consensus', the environmentalists' climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world's environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?"

Former Harvard physicist Dr. Lubos Motl said the new study has reduced proponents of man-made climate fears to "playing the children's game to scare each other."

Sampling of recent peer-reviewed studies debunking rising CO2 fears

There are many other brand new peer-reviewed studies that show that fear of rising CO2 is misplaced. Here is a sampling of even more recent papers that I have not already cited:

1) An August 2007 peer-reviewed study published in Geophysical Research Letters finds global warming over last century linked to natural causes. Excerpt: The study, by scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, was entitled "Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts." The author's found that "By studying the last 100 years of these [natural] cycles' patterns, they find that the systems synchronized several times." The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century." (LINK)

2) A September peer-reviewed study counters global warming theory, by finding carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age. The study found: "Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown. The lead author geologist Lowell Stott, explained: "The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms." (LINK)

3) An October 2007 study by the Danish National Space Center Study concluded: "The Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change." This study was authored by Physicist Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen. (LINK)

4) A Belgian weather institute's August 2007 study dismissed the decisive role of CO2 in warming. Here is an excerpt about the study: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which was published this past summer. Climate scientist Luc Debontridder explained: "Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it."

It would be nice if you could read the whole article, those were only a small portion of it.

Answer 2

Ocean freshening.
The global temperature conduit is ocean currents. Not the sun, not the wind, not magnetism.

England is warmer than Alberta at the same latitude because of ocean currents. The warm water is pumped up there from the south via the Gulf Stream.

Since the planet has existed, it has a propensity to be warm. From it's exposure to the sun, to the presence of liquid water and the motion of it's core, heat is generated. The confluence is that the planet is suspend in an absence of heat. As the planet warms, as it usually does, the polar caps melt. The melting introduces fresh water into the ocean. The changes in density and salinity will slow or even stop the heat pump.
Once that happens, here come the glaciers. The planet cools, the fresh water is frozen again expelling the salt and the pump begins again.
Predictions on the timming are difficult because it takes years for the planetary weather to respond to each thermal event and the controls for data analysis have to include the presence of industry now. There are no reliable models for that. There are some with varying agendas that are confusing the debate by suggesting that there is something radical and immediate man can do to overwhelm the fires of nature. There is not. Any effort would be puny by comparrison. That is not to say it's not worth doing because there are many other benefits to include fresh air and cleaner water.
To expect that without industry the temperature would remain stable is just intellectually dishonest.
Forgive the simple narrative. I didn't think anyone here would be interested in the details of hydro physics and planetary comparitive data.

Edit: OK fair enough.
There are dozens of theories associated with climate change rates. Mine would just add to the mix. Some are absurd in my opinion and a few hold water(pardon the pun). The point is that hydraulics can not be denied. One rate is dependent on another, there is nothing that suggests the planet could not cool at an accelerated rate either. The result is the same, as the planet warms it will invariably cool. It just doesn't matter. As a species we are more adept at dealing with any change than we ever have been before. We'll be fine.
You could make the argument that there are more of us now then ever before. Thanks to the Haber Bosch process there are billions more of us now that the planet needs to support and we might lose some as a result of losing land masses or water but none of the models are predicting that, Al Gore not withstanding. Since we've been here, there are some areas of the planet that have never been so hot nor so cold that they could not support our life form.
Will the planet be different than what we have grown accustomed to over the last few thousand years? Of course it will. The only constant, is change. Are we causing the rate of change because of our activity? Possible but certainly not definitive. Can we reverse it by diminishing our numbers and or our activity? Presumptious, to say the least. In any event, it would only marginally postpone what is naturally inevitable.
Every piece of Paleoclimatic data in concert with geophysical, geochemical and sedimentological data says that's true. The mere fact that Paleo climates are always referred to in the plural says that's true.
Relax.

Answer 3

Okay. Here's a theory for you. Remember now, the climate shift caused by humans is just a theory as well.
Deep below the ocean there is lots of methane gas trapped by the ocean's pressure. Magma flow and tectonic plate movement can raise and lower the ocean floor. If a section of the ocean floor is raised enough to release the pressure on a large pool of methane gas, that gas will escape into the atmosphere. Methane is more of a greenhouse gas than CO2.
If enough methane escapes from the ocean to raise temperatures just a few degrees, a large area of frozen tundra will start to thaw, as it is in Siberia today. This frozen tundra has even higher levels of trapped methane that will also escape when the permafrost melts, which will raise temperatures even more.
This theory is just as valid as man made CO2.
edit: There's zero evidence because no one is looking at methane as the problem. Everyone seems focused on CO2 as the culprit. Possibly because there is something we can do about CO2 emissions, whereas we can't do squat about methane being released from the ocean.
I do recall reading a study once years ago that theorized methane released from the ocean may have been the culprit that brought on the ice age, a cooling period that follows any warming period.

Answer 4

Well considering, we just came out of an ice age, 100 years ago,

How could be be expected to be in a cooling period ?

The earths temperature, hasn't equalized from the last ice age yet.

We know it was warmer, globally before the last ice age than it is now.

We know historically, that increased global temperature occurs several hundred years after an increase in global C02 emissions.

But no one has shown, where C02 emissions increased several hundred years ago, that could be causing the current increase in temperature.

And your last point, if you cannot explain warming scientificly, how can you believe its not caused by humans ..

Scientist, cannot explain what caused the warming trend that started around 300 AD.

They cannot explain the little ice age that started around 1500 and lasted to the late 1800's.

They can not explain the warming trend after the little ice age.

They cannot explain the cooling trend that started around 1940 and lasted untill 1975.

Computer models, using all the known facts, have not been able to accurately predict past global temperature changes.

They have tried plugging the date from ice core samples in to the computer models to see if they predicted the cooling trend after WW ll, it didn't work.

Neither have computer models been able to predict the little ice age.

So if using known data from ice core samples, written obersvations, cannot make the computer models track past weather conditions and temperatures.

Why should we believe using the same data sets, can predict future temperature changes ?

The science just doesn't back up any conclusions.

Answer 5

It's cyclic. If you were alive in 1975 you know the scientists were then predicting an Ice age because we had been cooling since the 30s. The 30s (the last peak) btw had warmer temps for the most part than today. Most record highs are from the 30s.

Answer 6

Global Climate Change, Solar output increases then the Earth gets warmer.

Answer 7

Explain the Ice Age when humans weren't around...

It has been scientifically proven that humans are responsible for 4% of CO2 gasses released into the atmosphere. We simply have not been around long enough so I don't buy "humans are responsible." This ideology is nothing more than hidden agenda pushed by far left politicians whose aim is massive consumptions taxes (which will ultimately hurt the poor and middle class).

Answer 8

Geologists have evidence that states that our Earth has heated and cooled, sometimes rhythmically sometimes sporadically. This is the natural cycle of life as our planet experiences it. .4 degrees in 30 years, big whoop!! Are you saying that humans are to blame for the climate change that killed the dinosaurs? Come on man, wake up!! It is the Earth, its far too large for us to understand all the intricacies that go into it, but I feel safe in knowing that we did not cause it and we cannot fix it. Leave that to something bigger, GOD.

Answer 9

Yes, you are correct.
There is a big Money Trail leading from the Global Warming Caused By Man Hoax.

There is a group of scientists that are offering $125,000 to anyone with any proof of Global Warming by Humans.
Al Gore tried to collect, but didn't have any Proof.
Cool!!!!!

Answer 10

"Quantitative alternative research"....to numeruous to list. I'm sure you've been provided with all the references to debunk your belief, but choose to ignore them. What I do have is common sense. To think that you and me can cause the earth to change in such a "drastic" fashion in 30 years is almost laughable. You must have an awefully high opinion of yourself to think you have that power.

But, here's all you have to do. Stop driving your car..start walking everywhere...work, store, vacations, clothing stores...whatever and wherever you go in any given day. Until you do that, you're nothing but another leftist hypocrite who is expecting somebody else to solve your fictitious problem.